[americandream]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('radon1', 'K')aiser, your point about capitalism's reliance on the basic human nature is a very valid one. Greed, fear, and hierarchy all have billions years of history and as such are tried and tested and very reliable. Communal forms will likely have to rely on human conscience, which is very recent and thus fragile and unreliable.

[radon1]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('americandream', '
')
Absolute nonsense! The history of all life on this planet is largely a communal narrative based around need and not greed. The human experience with greed has been largely a historical function of material conditions as they then existed, but this particular class of social relations is largely the exception, rather than the norm.

[americandream]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('radon1', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('americandream', '
')
Absolute nonsense! The history of all life on this planet is largely a communal narrative based around need and not greed. The human experience with greed has been largely a historical function of material conditions as they then existed, but this particular class of social relations is largely the exception, rather than the norm.

[kublikhan]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('radon1', 'T')he Chinese have been the most capitalistic capitalists in the world over the course of the past several decades. When did you last hear the word "Marx" from their officials? I don't have a recollection. There is hardly anything relevant to marxism in China these days.

[KaiserJeep]

americandream, you are denying reality. Americans are practicing Capitalism, and give more to charity than any other country, both in absolute terms and as measured per capita.

Americans volunteer for service (military, medical, religious, charities of all sorts) more than any other country.

Americans spend more on alternative energy, environmental issues of all sorts, and give more money for relief in other countries than do any citizens of any other country.

America exports more food for other countries than anyone else.

That's reality. When it does not match the preconceptions that Marx set for you, it means he got it wrong.

kublikhan, Wikipedia says: "The legal power of the Communist Party is guaranteed by the PRC constitution and its position as the supreme political authority in the PRC is realised through its comprehensive control of the state, military, and media."

Sounds pretty Communist to me.

[americandream]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('KaiserJeep', 'A')mericans volunteer for service (military, medical, religious, charities of all sorts) more than any other country.

[kublikhan]

KJ, that's not communism. That's authoritarianism. Just because the political party in power has the word communism in it's name does not mean it's actions are communist. China has embraced capitalism, but not democracy.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')e take the end of 1976 as the start of post-Mao reform and argue that China basically became a market economy by the end of the 90s before it joined the World Trade Organization in 2001. In the new millennium, the Chinese economy has kept its growth momentum and become more integrated with the global economy. As an account of how China became capitalist, our book focuses mainly on the first two decades of reform.

Today, with the benefit of hindsight, we know that the economic forces that were really transforming the Chinese economy in the first decade of reform were private farming, township and village enterprises, private business in cities, and the Special Economic Zones.

One such marginal revolution is private farming. Private farming was certainly not new in China. Before 1949, it had existed for millenia. In the early 1950s, Mao tried ruthlessly to collectivize farming. Some peasants believed in Mao and hoped collectivization would offer them a way out of poverty. After 20 years of collective farming and 40 million famine deaths, they knew better. Many went back to private farming after Mao died. Once the floodgates of private farming were opened, it could no longer be controlled.

The first private businesses in Chinese cities were started by people who did not have a job in the state sector. Most were city youths recently returned from the countryside. During Maos era, 20 million middle school graduates (ranging from 15 to 18 years old) in cities were sent to the countryside partly because the government could not create enough jobs. After Mao died, they came back, but found no job in the state sector. Young, jobless, and restless, they took to the streets and even blocked the railway. This mounting pressure forced the government to open the door for self employment. Private shops started to emerge in Chinese cities; they quickly ended state monopoly of the urban economy.

While marginal revolutions brought market forces back to China in the previous decade, regional competition became the main transformative force in the second decade, turning China into a market economy at the end of the century. China implemented price reform in 1992, tax reform in 1994, and began to privatize state enterprises in the mid-1990s. These reform measures paved the way for the rise of a common national market, which was able to impose market discipline on all economic actors, turning regional competition into a transformative force.

Conclusion
Given our account of how China became capitalist, what can we say about the form of capitalism that has emerged in China? A persisting feature of China’s market transition is the lack of political liberalization. This is not to say that the Chinese political system has stood still over the past 35 years. The Party has distanced itself from radical ideology; it is no longer communist except in name. In recent years, the internet has increasingly empowered the Chinese to exercise their political voice. Nonetheless, China remains ruled by a single political party.

[KaiserJeep]

Kublikhan, I am delighted that China is doing so well, I really am. Because as late as the 1958-1962 famine, when 15 million perished when the centrally planned economy failed, they were resolutely and completely Communist, and suffering the same lack of freedom and political oppresssion. The article above says:

"Capitalism will be much more robust if it’s not a monopoly of the West, but flourishes in societies with different cultures, religions, histories, and political systems."

If your point is that Capitalism is responsible for their current success and the ability to feed themselves, it is another comment about the non-viability of Communism.

Perhaps I should use North Korea and Cuba as my examples. Both were undeniably Communist, and were unviable satellite states of the USSR once it's subsidies stopped - niether had any oil, for example. North Korea is still representative of Communism in every way, whereas Cuba has implemented private farming, and can now feed itself. Yet without their own sources of energy, niether can transition to manufacturing or even large scale agriculture.

It staggers my imagination that anyone could look at the actual lack of success in all of the current and former Communist states, and conclude that Marx was right about anything. When I look at the lessons of History, I see that Communism is not viable at all, and Marx and Engels may have written some intrigueing texts, but that was all - their economic theories do not work at all. Furthermore, such theories lead to genocide.

[Strummer]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('KaiserJeep', 'A')mericans are practicing Capitalism, and give more to charity than any other country, both in absolute terms and as measured per capita.

Americans volunteer for service (military, medical, religious, charities of all sorts) more than any other country.

Americans spend more on alternative energy, environmental issues of all sorts, and give more money for relief in other countries than do any citizens of any other country.

America exports more food for other countries than anyone else.

[radon1]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('americandream', '
')Do you ever bother to consider what I write on the nature of social relations and the role of the material context in their evolution. To fall prey to this nonsense that we are all instinctively greedy falls foul of even basic evolutionary principles.

Greed was a unique function of a number of factors, a mutation for want of a better word in a cocktail of factors, but nonetheless, still second fiddle to our overall group psyche.

It pays to understand these forces so as we may more consistently speak when conveying the message of peak oil and climate in a bid to persuade. However, continuing to believe in the key mantra of capitalism whilst asking people to be selfless....thats confusion on an epic scale bud.

[radon1]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('KaiserJeep', '
')If your point is that Capitalism is responsible for their current success and the ability to feed themselves, it is another comment about the non-viability of Communism.

[vtsnowedin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('radon1', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('americandream', '
')Do you ever bother to consider what I write on the nature of social relations and the role of the material context in their evolution. To fall prey to this nonsense that we are all instinctively greedy falls foul of even basic evolutionary principles.

Greed was a unique function of a number of factors, a mutation for want of a better word in a cocktail of factors, but nonetheless, still second fiddle to our overall group psyche.

It pays to understand these forces so as we may more consistently speak when conveying the message of peak oil and climate in a bid to persuade. However, continuing to believe in the key mantra of capitalism whilst asking people to be selfless....thats confusion on an epic scale bud.

[Quinny]

As it is in the interest of the majority of people surely a communist society is inevitable. Or as we say in France 'inevitable'.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('KaiserJeep', 'I') do happen to believe in the oil peak. I don't blame Capitalism. I blame basic human nature, in fact the same behavior that began about 3000 BC when humans extended the tribe structure into villages and clans. That is the earliest form of Capitalism and the earliest Capitalists were herders, farmers, blacksmiths, bakers, brewers, etc.

In other words, they were tradesmen. The earliest venture capitalist was the local banker or money lender. The basic structure of Capitalism was present in 3000 BC, the only thing that changed past that point was the scale. The technology of warfare enabled the extension of the largest geographical unit from a village to a country, and enabled the scale up of tribal conflicts to (eventually) World War.

In other words, Marx got it wrong, he confused results with cause. The net results are pretty much the same except that if you accept the twaddle published by Marx, you believe in a safety net that does not actually exist. Which is a foolish self-deception because it requires humans to act against basic self-interest, to place the collective good above even the family structure. It will never happen. We will all either live or dies as Capitalists.

Which is as on-topic as it is possible to be, by one who does not share your foolish delusion.

[KaiserJeep]

It's not clear to me that Communism is "in the interest of the majority of people". I understand that the theory says it is - but those on the receiving end of one of the many Communist genocides would argue the point.

[Lore]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('KaiserJeep', 'I')t's not clear to me that Communism is "in the interest of the majority of people". I understand that the theory says it is - but those on the receiving end of one of the many Communist genocides would argue the point.

[KaiserJeep]

Those sound like other words for the oft-repeated "There is nothing wrong with the idea of Communism, it's just that the right people haven't been in charge."

Which is the refrain of would-be despots everywhere.

I'll just go with the odds. If there never was an actual Marxist society, the idea remains unproven and unlikely. If any of the 42 countries that tried Communism were in fact doing so correctly, then the concept is thoroughly disproven.

[Lore]

You could say the opposite. There is nothing wrong with democracy, just the right people haven't been in charge. We're getting a dose of that everyday.

Please point out within any doctrine where said atrocities are advocated?

[vtsnowedin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Lore', 'Y')ou could say the opposite. There is nothing wrong with democracy, just the right people haven't been in charge. We're getting a dose of that everyday.

Please point out within any doctrine where said atrocities are advocated?

[radon1]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('KaiserJeep', ' ') If any of the 42 countries that tried Communism were in fact doing so correctly, then the concept is thoroughly disproven.

[Lore]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('vtsnowedin', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Lore', 'Y')ou could say the opposite. There is nothing wrong with democracy, just the right people haven't been in charge. We're getting a dose of that everyday.

Please point out within any doctrine where said atrocities are advocated?